Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) says comments he made Monday that appeared to imply that American troops were uneducated were a "botched joke" intended to insult President Bush.

[SNIP]

His comment was "clearly a remark that was directed at this administration."

Okay--let's take another look at that "remark", shall we?

"Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't you get stuck in Iraq."

If that was a remark directed at the Administration, I fail to see the link.

At a news conference in Seattle Tuesday, Kerry refused to apologize, and accused Republicans of distorting his comment in a "classic GOP, textbook Republican campaign tactic."

Even if Jean Francios Kerrie's remark was a "botched joke" directed against the Bush administration (which I don't believe for a second), shouldn't the mere outcry by veterans and family members of deployed soldiers give this arrogant twit a clue that an apology may be in order? Mr. Kerry will be in Minnesota tomorrow campaigning for Tim Walz and the Minnesota DFL party. In response, Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Joe Repya today issued the following statement regarding John Kerry's visit:

"The men and women serving in the uniform of our nation are not fodder for politicians to joke about. By insulting veterans and active members of the United States military as uneducated losers, John Kerry owes an apology to all the brave men and women who have ever worn the uniform of our country. As a 2005 veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I call on Tim Walz and the DFL Party to immediately denounce Kerry's deeply offensive remarks and rescind their invitations for Kerry to campaign in our state tomorrow."

As a parent of a deployed soldier, I'm really getting tired of the seditious, over-the-top comments by Kerry, Murtha, et. al., that continue to go unchallenged, especially during a time of war. Being the elitists that they are, they operate under the assumptions that either:

1.They exist in a vacuum, and their words bear no consequence; and/or2. They know that their words bear consequence, but in their arrogance, couldn't give a damn.

Monday, October 30, 2006

With Halloween upon us, we are often regaled with tales of witches, beasties and other ghostly things that go bump in the night and visit havoc upon earthly beings.

Well, in New York on November 7th, ghosts may once more come to visit and wreak havoc upon earthly inhabitants. But rather than going "bump" in the night, these spectres will do something far more nefarious.

Steven T. Vermilye was a home inspector and general contractor who grew up in Croton-on-Hudson - he and his father helped build the boat launch at Senasqua Park - went to college in Texas and settled in New Paltz in 1971.

Betty L. Johnson came from a small town in Virginia and moved to Beacon when she was 17, where she raised eight children while boxing duct tape at Tuck Tape and working in the kitchen at the Castle Point Veterans Hospital.

David S. Stairs was born in Glasgow, Scotland, and came to the mid-Hudson Valley in 1927, where as a 16-year-old he pounded hot rivets into the New York Central Railroad at Croton-Harmon and then spent 45 years working his way up through Texaco's research center in Glenham.

The three mid-Hudson Valley residents had little in common during their lives, but share one thing now: Records exist of them casting a vote after they died.

A new statewide database of registered voters contains as many as 77,000 dead people on its rolls, and as many as 2,600 of them have cast votes from the grave, according to a Poughkeepsie Journal computer-assisted analysis.

So, those of you in New York, Seattle, St. Louis, Chicago, and other democrat strongholds, when you bundle your little ones and take them out tomorrow night for "trick or treat", remember that there may indeed be "dead men walking" among you.

This morning’s New York Times carries a front page story alleging that the “The American military has not properly tracked hundreds of thousands of weapons intended for Iraqi security forces.”

If all of this sounds just a wee-bit familiar… On October 25, 2004, again, 8 days before the election, the New York Times (in conjunction with CBS News’s 60 Minutes) unleashed their “October Surprise” alleging missing weapons at the al Qa’qaa weapons facility in Iraq.

So much for the unbiased, pure as the wind-driven-snow, agenda-less, NYT.

What a terrible mistake! I was shocked and extremely disappointed to read that my daily newspaper, the Trib, has endorsed Jack Murtha.

Over the past three years, Murtha has strongly spoken against the mission of the troops and endangered their lives. To say he is a "stronger, more steadfast voice for this nation's military" borders on a journalist lie. To say he was "well ahead on the learning curve" and "recognized the fallacy of pursuing Iraq's welfare through U.S. supplied warfare" is ridiculous and alarming.

When the U.S. began this Iraq campaign, everyone knew it was going to be a long, difficult effort. It sounds like the Trib thinks the war is over and we should pack up and come home. It really sounds like the Trib has joined the cut-and-run crowd.

Ken RuzichO'Hara

...and not to disappoint Ken Ruzich, Jack Murtha, our enemy's best friend, chimes in with this diatribe.

But Jack Murtha counters with, "“The only thing that’s changed is, I disagree with the policy of the president.”

If that's so, then Jack Murtha has always thought it prudent to play judge, jury and executioner to Marines without formal charges being filed, even without so much as reading a report.

If that's so, then Jack Murtha's sentiments have always been aligned with radical leftist groups like Code Pink.

If that's so, then Jack Murtha would always have thought it fitting to say he supports the troops via regular visits to Walter Reed, while accepting an award as "Man of the Year" from Code Pink, a radical socialist antiwar group that regularly protests in front of our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed.

If that's so, then Jack Murtha has always thought it fitting that he should seek ways to accept a $50,o00 bribe without getting caught. (then again, perhaps this was the case, since Jack Murtha saw it fitting to throw a party for a staffer who just got done being convicted for taking a bribe).

If that's so, then Jack Murtha would have always thought it fitting that he should vote against the Patriot Act, and to say that we should be without the tools necessary that may prevent another 9/11 (showing that he is in fact to the left of the ACLU).

If that's so, then Jack Murtha would have always thought it fitting that he should, in another of his famous "political deals," vote against funding research that would improve prosthetics for wounded soldiers.

If nothing about Jack Murtha has changed, then Jack Murtha would have always thought it fitting to be against measures that would strengthen the security at our borders, and to vote against stiffer sentences for illegal aliens who have committed felonies.

I don't know. Maybe Jack Murtha has truly not changed. Maybe we should take him at his word.

But if that is indeed the case, then it seems safe to say that for the past 31 years, the voters of PA-12 have been sold a bill of goods.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

This UPI story points us to this site that contains a petition for redress that reportedly allows servicemen to request an immediate withdrawal of all troops and bases from Iraq. According to the UPI story:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 (UPI) -- At least 346 active or former military members had signed on by Wednesday to a Web site asking Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq, organizers said.

And..

As of the morning of Oct. 25, 195 self-professed servicemembers had signed up, including at least 98 who had served in Iraq. The total included 11 veterans, including a veteran of the Korean war.

Eighty soldiers, 55 seamen, 21 Marines, 14 airmen and three Coast Guard members were on the list. A breakdown of the 346 as of Wednesday afternoon was not available.

Note the opertative words. Self-professed servicemembers. And note who started the site:

"The Appeal for Redress" was started by active duty service members based in the Norfolk, Va., area and by Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans For Peace, and Military Families Speak Out. The Web site went live Monday.

Note not one of the organizations that are "speaking out" are conservative groups. Most are downright moon-batty. And a quick perusal of the form suggests that there is no means of verification of whether the person filling out the petition is really of military status. Which means that anybody can fill this out, and say that they're military. A recent mock MOB election shows how easily this can be done.

But wait!! --the moonbats would never stoop so low as to fake military service, would they?

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

WATERLOO --- Republican Iowa House District 20 candidate David Wieland and Iowa House Speaker Christopher Rants of Sioux City have denounced a political advertisement released this weekend against Wieland showing what appears to be a covered cadaver on a gurney, assailing his position on stem-cell research.

Wieland said he supports adult, but not embryonic, stem-cell research, but said the ad implies "If you vote for Dave Wieland, you're going to kill people."

He and Rants called the ad a new low in the already vitriolic campaign between Wieland and Democrat Doris Kelley for the District 20 seat being vacated by the retiring Waterloo Republican Willard Jenkins.

"She (Kelley) has thrown out all bounds of decency," Wieland said today. "I have never done an attack like this on my opponent," except to refer to Kelley as a "lobbyist."

I tell you, the democrats' Goebbels-like tactics are getting to be unbelievable.

There is no proven benefit to fetal stem cell research. None. There is, however, PROOF that fetal stem cells are unstable, and have the tendency to evolve into tumors. There is also ample proof that adult stem cells and cord-blood stem cells hold infinitely more promise for benefit, and do nothing to harm a developing human life.

So why are the leftists hanging on to this Mengelian notion of destroying fetuses for fun and profit? Because they see the moral legs of their pro-abortion platform crumbling, and they can't find anything else from which to prop up their argument.

With advances in medical technology, human babies are living far longer outside the womb than ever before, calling into question abortion for the sake of the "health of the mother." Forget about the supposed morality of partial-birth abortions. The abortion lobby, knowing that they have no moral leg to stand on in continuing their heinous practices, are clinging on to the specious, mythical "promise" of fetal/embryonic stem cell research like an aging, used up Hennepin Avenue hooker hangs on to her last "rock" of crack cocaine.

Abortion, and its ugly cousin, embryonic and fetal stem cell "research", like the holocaust, like the Stalinist Purges, and like slavery will go down in history as one of man's most egregious acts of inhumanity to his fellow man.

But what Patty Wetterling, Democratic congressional candidate inMinnesota's sixth district, just did is so wrong, so dishonest, so low even for the generally negative tone of political advertising, and so injurious to children, that I am breaking a lifelong silence on congressional races to beg Democrats and others in her district not to vote for her.

This is not motivated by partisanship; I would even prefer a candidate to the left of her. Vote for the Green candidate if there is one; write in someone to the left of her. But to vote for Patty Wetterling is to harm political discourse and compromise our society's battle against child abuse.

Her recent television ad, referring to the Mark Foley scandal, states: "It shocks the conscience . . . congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman who used the Internet to molest children."

Even the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, among America's most left/liberal newspapers, which essentially endorses only Democrats, published an article under the headline, "Wetterling ad overstates facts: The TV spot by the Sixth District candidate is wrong in stating that members of Congress admitted to a coverup -- none has."

What Mark Foley did was wrong. It was an abuse of his power and stature as congressman to attempt to take advantage of young, impressionable underling pages in his quest for self-gratification. It was a total abuse of his office, and of the trust placed in him by the voters. He resigned. Good riddance.

Wrong also is Patty Wetterling to opportunistically leech on to this issue, or, at the very least, as the STRIB put it,"overstate the facts," for her personal political gain. Prager's point in the article (again, please read the entire thing) was that Wetterling's use of the term "molest(ation)" in this matter completely dilutes the meaning of that term. As Prager stated,

To equate seductive e-mails to a 16-year-old -- or even the more explicit instant messages with an 18-year-old (which no Republican knew about) -- with "molesting children" -- only undermines our efforts to fight the enormous, almost unparalleled, evil of child molestation. What Patty Wetterling has deliberately done for political gain is to cheapen, redefine, and thereby reduce hatred of, child molestation.

Like Cindy Sheehan, Wetterling has been given credibility as a spokesperson due to the loss of a child. The tragic, painful godawful loss of a child. But while both Wetterling and Sheehan can credibly and with great authority speak to the untold pain and suffering a parent feels when a child's death precedes her own, their experiences cannot nor should not translate into unquestioned unilateral authority relative to issues of policy, nor should their ideas or even their motivations on such matters be deemed infallible or unquestionable. Just as it would be folly to consider Cindy Sheehan's ramblings sacred and/or irrefutable with regard to Iraq and other foreign policy matters, it also is a public disservice to allow Patty Wetterling's wrong-minded and politically-motivated rhetoric to go unchallenged; and thinking voters should not be chided against questioning the motivation and/or reasoning behind her actions. The public good demands that policy be borne of rational thought unfettered by blind emotion.

Don't get me wrong. Wetterling (and for that matter Sheehan), has every First-Amendment right to publicly air her grief, along with demands for public policy based on her experiences. She has every right to run a campaign to try to convince voters that she is the best candidate for the MN 6th CD. But voters also have a First Amendment right, nay, an obligation, to question her assertions and motivations, given that she seeks an office whose function it is to represent their interests.

Monday, October 23, 2006

In an article in the Chicago Tribune, Murtha compares himself with one of the most failed, most far-left presidential candidates of the 20th century, George McGovern:

While polls suggest that a majority of Americans now think it was a mistake to invade Iraq, the 74-year-old Murtha is leading an almost singular political charge to bring the troops home. Eleven months after Murtha stunned Washington with a call to withdraw from Iraq, there is no boisterous band of incumbent Democratic brothers joining the old Marine against the barrage of cut-and-run and defeat-o-crat charges.

"It took a long time to realize that George McGovern was way ahead of everyone else," he said.

With the quarters of support he has been seeking and maintaining this past year, it is no surprise that Jack Murtha would liken himself to one of the most far-left politicians ever to be endorsed by a major political party for high office in the 20th century.

But was George McGovern reallyahead of everyone else? Well, I suppose that one could argue that McGovern was on the vanguard of the anti- Vietnam war movement.

But being ahead does not necessarily equate to being right. In fact, Sometimes being ahead can translate into being very wrong. McGovern, perhaps not incidentally one of the founding members of the far-left wing Progressive Party in the late 1940s, pretty much set the standard for the anti-war movement of the 1960s. A movement, by the way, that was not without consequence. As a matter of fact, one can say that the Vietnam-era antiwar movement was largely responsible for the snuffing out of every life that belonged to the skulls in this photo--and then some.

In a war where the U.S. had lost no military battles, the anti-war left, which George McGovern embodied, waged a propaganda war that led to a premature pullout of American soldiers, which in turn led directly to a genocide of innocents at levels unseen since the Stalinist purges.

So it indeed seems entirely fitting for Jack Murtha, who wants the United States to prematurely pull out of a war in which it has lost no military battles--leaving as a result untold millions vulnerable to the whims of bloodthirsty savages--to compare himself with George McGovern, who was responsible in large part for the killing fields that ravaged Southeast Asia after the U.S. pullout. It also seems to be no accident that Murtha proudly compares himself with a man whose antiwar movement was also responsible for the mentality that led to spitting on soldiers and calling them "baby killers" upon their return from Vietnam. After all, Murtha has done his share of spitting on soldiers, as well.

Worse yet, when we prematurely pulled out of Vietnam, the Viet Kong set up shop, slaughtered hundreds of thousands if not millions of their fellow countrymen, and stayed put.

Should we prematurely pull out of Iraq, the Islamofascists will set up shop, and slaughter hundreds of thousands if not millions of their fellow countrymen. The main difference being, of course, is that should we prematurely pull out of Iraq, the Islamofascists have no intention of "staying put."

This leads me to wonder if the active and retired military voters of PA-12 ever, in their wildest dreams, knew that they had elected a United States congressman who would not only embrace George McGovern as a role model, but be proud of it?

Chances are, before Jack Murtha started opening his big fat piehole in his quest for political power, one never would have known. But with the notoriety that Murtha has brought upon himself this past year, he has at the very least allowed PA-12 voters to gain more and more of a glimpse at who he truly is. And it hasn't been pretty.

Actually, it is with some degree of irony that Jack Murtha chose George McGovern as a role model. After all, when all is said and done on November 7th, Murtha and McGovern will not only have shared similar antiwar sentiments with the potential for yielding similar (or worse) consequences, they will have also shared a similar electoral fate.

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Today, I went to the home of MN 45th Senate District candidate (and Freedom Dog Blogger) Derek Brigham, who threw one helluva soiree as a thank you to those who contributed time and/or treasure to his campaign. Other luminaries were there, namely Kevin Ecker, who in this picture was recounting how he almost got the starring role in playing Beaver Cleaver in a soon-to-be made Broadway musical production of the 1950s classic sitcom.

Not to be outdone, our own MOB mayoral runoff candidate, Andy Apiloski, who is running a magnificent campaign against a foul-mouthed chimp, shows in this photo how he intends to grab the chick vote by playing himself off as a disgruntled longshoreman.

And finally, our own 6th District congressman, now running for U.S. Senate, Mark Kennedy made an appearance.

In this photo, Mark is displaying how he hand-wove one of his trademarked plaid shirts.

Seriously, folks--it was a great time, and Derek, aside from being a primo MN State Senate candidate, is a helluva guy, and one heck of a host. I know for a fact that he's right on the issues, and would make a great representative of MN SD 45, and a wonderful conservative addition to the Minnesota state Senate. Click on his link in my sidebar, and send him some ka-ching, if you feel so inclined!

Mat Toenniessen at Red State is more than optimistic about the upcoming elections. Specifically, he points to the fact that in the spate of recent polls put out by the MSM, there seems to be an uncharacteristically high discrepancy between voter party self-identification and historical norms. Never, for example, has a political party in the last 14 years held more than a four point advantage of self-identifying voters over the other party, yet Mat points to an article at NRO that suggests that respondents interviewed in many early October polls identified themselves uncharacteristically high as Democrat vs. Republican. By as many as 11 points!

...there is a material discrepancy between the party identification listed by people in exit polls (people who actually voted) between 1992 and 2004, and those used over the last few weeks.

and

In short, between 1992 and 2004, only once did one party enjoy an advantage as large as 4 points over the other in party ID. But in recent polling samples used by eight different polling organizations (USA Today/Gallup, CBS/NYTimes, ABC/Washington Post, CNN/Opinion Research, Newsweek, AP/Ipsos, Pew, and Time), the Democratic advantage in the sample surveyed was never less than 5 points.

Mat surmizes (and personally I think it's safe to say) that these numbers are very uncharacteristic when compared with voter trends over the past 12 years. While the people at NRO caution that it can be a natural trend for voters to change identification over time, an 11-point shift in voter identification one way or another seems a bit of a stretch. Thus, Mat states, and I agree, that:

In other words, the media and the polling outfits are MANIPULATING the outcome by over weighting the sample with Democrats so that it LOOKS like Democrats have it locked.

[SNIP]

This is part of the attempt to demoralize and disgust the Republican base so much that they stay home on Election Day.

Mat, however, posits that this last-minute hijinx put forth by the MSM and democrats will backfire. For Pennsylvania, Mat predicts:

Rick Santorum will win his Senate seat because after the debates people of Pennsylvania saw Casey for what he is, a lightweight with no knowledge or truth about the issues. In the last debate Casey actually stated that there were 5000 gun dealers in Philadelphia and only a few dozen ATF agents to police them. Santorum blew him away by proving to him that there are only 22 gun dealers in the city, not 5000. This was but one lie that Casey has been spouting that Santorum has debunked. Santorum is within eight points now, and this number will move further his way in the next two weeks.

And for the pease de resistance, Mat predicts:

Cut and Run Democrat John Murtha, also of Penna, is under attack by a great Republican candidate, Diana Irey. I tried for months to get a poll of this race and there was nothing. Then last week the Pittsburgh Tribune released a poll of only 400 people, probably from their offices, that had Murtha up by double digits. But the paper refused to list who they polled, from where and from what party. The poll even had Irey losing in her hometown where she is well liked and very popular.The Irey campaign has called the poll wrong and proved that their internal polling show the race a dead heat.

Just as I have suspected all along, now is not the time to drink the Kool-Aid. The election belongs to those people who show up. And it is my prediction that voters will show up in droves to send a clear message that it still isn't safe to vote democrat; and overconfident democrats everywhere will be once again crying in their coffee come the morning of November 8th, wondering what the heck went wrong.

Friday, October 20, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Elizabeth Edwards, wife of White House hopeful John Edwards, apologized to Sen. Hillary Clinton after saying her choices in life have made her happier than the senator, a Clinton aide said Friday.

Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson said Elizabeth Edwards called the New York Democrat on Friday night just after she finished a debate in Rochester, N.Y., against Republican challenger John Spencer.

"Elizabeth Edwards called her and apologized," Wolfson said. "They had a good conversation."

Heh---"good conversation". I suppose it went something like this:

Hillary to Elizabeth:"Apologize, bitch, or I'll go Vince Foster all over your ass!"

Wolfson said the two spoke only for a couple of minutes.

"The senator thanked her for the call and wished her well on her book tour," Wolfson said.

The apology followed remarks by Elizabeth Edwards on Thursday at a luncheon sponsored by Ladies' Home Journal.

"She and I are from the same generation," she said of the senator and former first lady. "We both went to law school and married other lawyers, but after that we made other choices. I think my choices have made me happier. I think I'm more joyful than she is."

Ooooooo.... man--that must've hit Hillary like a ton of Monicas (I think that works out to be around 4 or so). But then again, true liberals are a joyless lot, and despite her recent attempts to portray herself as otherwise, Hillary is, after all, a true liberal.

As I've stated elsewhere and on this blog, the willing shills of the democrat party, specifically the mainstream media, have been working overtime these past few weeks on a "depress the conservative vote" propaganda blitz the likes to which the works of Goebbels would pale in comparison.

As the MSM has more often than not been so wrong and has gone so far as to outright lie lo' this past decade, I have admonished you to not believe a word you see or hear from the alphabets or the dead paper media.

If you've listened to the MSM the past few weeks, you no doubt "know" that conservative voters are going to be staying home in droves this election season, due to the Mark Foley flap, the failed strategy in Iraq, and other supposed Bush administration failures.

But when you look at the real numbers, you must realize that the spate of anti-republican hit pieces has been more a product of a fertile imagination than anything real:

The RNC's internal research shows election interest at 7.7 on a 10-point scale among Republicans and 7.6 among Democrats, unchanged from late September and in line with this year's overall trend.

Gallup (Oct. 6-8)

To quote from Gallup's voter turnout projection, "Gallup's latest analysis suggests Republicans and Democrats are now roughly even in terms of anticipated turnout in the midterm congressional elections. The voting intentions of the large pool of registered voters is now similar to the voting intentions of the smaller pool of likely voters, showing no disproportionate impact of turnout in either direction"

Gallup asked, "How motivated do you feel to get out and vote this year -- extremely motivated, very motivated, somewhat motivated, not too motivated or not at all motivated?(% "extremely" or "very" motivated)" The following table shows that the GOP in fact now holds a slight lead, up from just a few months ago:

GOP

DEM

NET

Sept 15-17, 2006

70%

67%

+3

Jun 23-25, 2006

74%

77%

-3

Oct 3-6, 2002

65%

55%

+10

Oct 29-Nov 1, 1998

59%

57%

+2

Oct 23-25, 1998

67%

56%

+11

Oct 9-12, 1998

59%

53%

+6

Sep 23-24, 1998

73%

62%

+11

Cook/RT Strategies (Oct. 5-8)

On a scale of one to 10, Republicans and Democrats have almost equally high mean election interest scores (8.2 for Republicans, 8.1 for Democrats), but Democrats hold a slight edge in the percentage of their voters who are "highly interested"--47 to 51 percent.

However, keeping in mind the local nature of midterm elections, it is moreimportantto consider intensity by state or congressional district. RT Strategies/Constituent Dynamics (conducted Oct. 8-10) released district-by-district polling showing Republicans have a slight edge in partisan intensity. GOP "voter motivation" is higher than Democratic motivation in 19 of 32 competitive House races, in some cases by as much as a full point on a 1 to 9 scale. Democratic intensity is higher in the remaining 13, and in none of those races is the difference higher than 2/3 of a point.

Additional Data

A recent Pew study (9/21-10/4) found that while roughly similar numbers of Republicans (41%) and Democrats (39%) are "regular" voters, more Republicans (25%) than Democrats (20%) vote intermittently--meaning there are more of our voters for us to turn out in a midterm election. Furthermore, Democrats (20%) are substantially more likely than Republicans (14%) to not be registered to vote at all.

Other Measures of Intensity

There are ways besides polls to measure the intensity of the Republican base, and those also indicate that GOP voters are strongly engaged. Fundraising, for example, is often called the 'first ballot' for the simple reason that supporters only donate when they are involved and enthusiastic. That is why we are excited that the RNC received support from 362,000 new donors this cycle. We've averaged 8,256 contributions for each deposit day so far this year. We just announced that September has been our best financial month of the entire cycle. Our supporters know how important this election is, and their financial support shows it.

Volunteer enthusiasm is another key measure of intensity. Again, every indication here is that our base is working hard for victory in the 2006 election. Republican volunteers have contacted more than 14 million voters this year, and more than 7 million since Labor Day alone. We have made 1 million voter contacts every week for the past five weeks, and for six weeks we have surpassed the number of contacts we made at comparable times in 2004, a presidential election year.

The Bottom Line

Despite the media hype, an examination of all the facts makes it clear: the Republican base is active and engaged. No matter how you measure it--whether by record-breaking fundraising, unprecedented volunteerism, or scientific polling--the numbers show that Republicans understand the importance of the choice we all face on November 7.

Gary Gross pointed me to this article by Parvez Ahmed and Nihad Awad wrote in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune today. Basically, they prop up Keith Ellison, and admonish anyone who criticizes Ellison's ties with CAIR, as being hateful islamophobes. After, all, their article states:

At the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), we are proud of our record of promoting interfaith understanding. We are also proud of our commitment to peace and our repeated condemnations of terrorism in all its forms, whether carried out by individuals, groups or states.

Parvez Ahmed is board chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation's largest Muslim civil liberties group. Nihad Awad is CAIR's national executive director.

Hmmm... where have I seen that name before... Parvez Ahmed... Ohhh yess!

And Mr. Awad... hmmm... seems that name is familiar as well. But he doesn't support terrorists, does he?

Nope--he just supports that group of boy scouts known as "Hamas". Oh yeah, and that nice little group of jihadists that tried to bring the twin towers down in 1993:

Awad wrote in the Muslim World Monitor that the 1994 trial that resulted in the conviction of four Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who had perpetrated the previous year's World Trade Center bombing was "a travesty of justice." Notwithstanding the confessions of the terrorists, Awad said: "There is ample evidence indicating that both the Mossad and the Egyptian Intelligence played a role in the explosion." (emphases mine)

But that's okay, Mssrs. Awad and Ahmed. Just keep on with your support of Mr. Ellison. It's good to let voters of Minnesota's 5th CD get the chance to know just who they're dealing with.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Scientists are boldly going where only fiction has gone before - to develop a Cloak of Invisibility. It isn't quite ready to hide a Romulan space ship from Capt. James T. Kirk or to disguise Harry Potter, but it is a significant start and could show the way to more sophisticated designs.

In this first successful experiment, researchers from the United States and England were able to cloak a copper cylinder.

It's like a mirage, where heat causes the bending of light rays and cloaks the road ahead behind an image of the sky.

"We have built an artificial mirage that can hide something from would-be observers in any direction," said cloak designer David Schurig, a research associate in Duke University's electrical and computer engineering department.

For their first attempt, the researchers designed a cloak that prevents microwaves from detecting objects. Like light and radar waves, microwaves usually bounce off objects, making them visible to instruments and creating a shadow that can be detected.

Nonetheless, the likes of Keith Ellison and the likes of Howard Dean are like two peas in a pod:

Dean Doesn't Want "To Prejudge" Bin Laden As Guilty.

Dean: "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials. So I'm sure that is the correct sentiment of most Americans, but I do think if you're running for president, or if you are president, it's best to say that the full range of penalties should be available. But it's not so great to prejudge the judicial system.'"

Folks, it still ain't safe to vote democrat. And it certainly isn't safe to vote for Keith Ellison.

BTW, The email has some other rocket-scientist level quotes from Dean, including

“I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for …”(Dana Milbank, “Dean’s Past As Prologue To DNC Future,” The Washington Post, 1/29/05)

"Patty Wetterling's smear machine has been leveling baseless attacks for months now and the DCCC's latest false attack ad on sex offenders is no exception. Wetterling knows she can't win in the Sixth District so she and her Washington, D.C. attack dogs are throwing mud at Michele Bachmann to obscure Wetterling’s far-left record.- Mark Drake, Republican Party of Minnesota Spokesman

DCCC False Attack: “Who would vote against a bill that would put repeat sex offenders behind bars for life?”

Reality:

· Bachmann voted in favor of an amendment that would have provided a life without parole sentences for all offenders who commit first degree criminal sexual conduct, including first time offenders and also provides indeterminate sentences for all other sex offenders. (Minnesota Senate Journal p. 3880, 4/7/04)

· Bachmann voted in favor of an amendment that would have provided indeterminate sentences for sex offenders on their first offense, which keeps sexual predators behind bars until a review board determines them fit for release. (Minnesota Senate Journal p. 3883, , 4/7/04)

DCCC False Attack: “Who would vote against a bill that makes operating meth labs close to children a crime?”

Reality

· Bachmann voted for an amendment that included mandatory minimum sentences for those offenders who attempt to manufacture meth, restrictions on selling meth precursor drugs, consecutive sentences for those who manufacture meth in the presence of a child or vulnerable adult, and the creation of a meth lab cleanup revolving loan fund to help counties with meth lab clean up. (Minnesota Senate Journal p. 3899. 4/7/04)

· Bachmann also voted in support of an amendment to increase funding to improve the predatory offender database to track sex offenders, including $1.5 million in FY05 for special agents and support staff to enforce predator offender compliance, scientists, and equipment to process DNA and other critical evidence, and to improve the predator offender database. (Minnesota Senate Journal p. 3852, 4/7/04)

But I guess desperate times call for desperate measures, eh Ms. Wetterling? I suppose if lying and obfuscation are the only ways that you can gain power, then have at it.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Be on the lookout for this creep. Rusty at the Jawa Report has the details. The Al Qaeda scumbucket scumwad morons (with apologies to any scumbucket, scumwad morons whom I may have offended--I just couldn't find any more appropriate terms) have threatened to set off a dirty bomb before the end of Ramadan (October 23rd).

"Child advocate" (I always put that phrase in quotes, especially due to her stand on abortion) Patty Wetterling continues to behave more and more like a ruthless and crooked politician than a "pure as the wind-driven snow" "child advocate".

As I've stated before, we are in the midst of a liberal media propaganda war, the likes and the level of which harken back to the days of yellow journalism. And this insidious parade of pernicious propaganda continues to roll on in the dead tree media, who remain either oblivious to the fact that the results of their polls are so incredible as to defy belief, or desperate enough to hope that there are enough voters out there who stand to be duped by their dishonesty.

This time, they have Patty Wetterling, who herself conceded that she was too liberal for the tastes of the MN 6th CD (arguably one of the most conservative of Minnesota's congressional districts), predictably (as I related to Jeff Kouba) ahead of Michele Bachmann 48-40.

As has been the case in every election season now for the past 30-plus years, it has been the dinosaur media and the Democrats vs. the Republicans.

While it is true that democrats tend to raise less money from a lesser variety of people than do republicans, their lack of fundraising is more than made up through free propaganda and advertising, courtesy of their all-too-willing media shills.

Monday, October 16, 2006

News today that Harry Reid, resident of the Ritz-Carlton Condominiums in Washington D.C., illegally used $3,300 in campaign donations toward a Ritz-Carlton staff holiday bonus. His campaign listed the expenditures, which took place over several years, as “salary.”

His excuse: “These donations were made to thank the men and women who work in the building for the extra work they do as a result of my political activities, and for helping the security officers assigned to me because of my Senate position,'' Reid said.

To his credit, how many plausible excuses for dirty deeds can one man possibly be expected to come up with?

WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has been using campaign donations instead of his personal money to pay Christmas bonuses for the support staff at the Ritz-Carlton where he lives in an upscale condominium. Federal election law bars candidates from converting political donations for personal use.

Questioned about the campaign expenditures by The Associated Press, Reid's office said Monday he was personally reimbursing his campaign for $3,300 in donations he had directed to the staff holiday fund at his residence.

Reid also announced he was amending his ethics reports to Congress to more fully account for a Las Vegas land deal, highlighted in an AP story last week, that allowed him to collect $1.1 million in 2004 for property he hadn't personally owned in three years.

In that matter, the senator hadn't disclosed to Congress that he first sold land to a friend's limited liability company back in 2001 and took an ownership stake in the company. He collected the seven-figure payout when the company sold the land again in 2004 to others.

Reid portrayed the 2004 sale as a personal sale of land, making no mention of the company's ownership or its role in the sale.

Reid said his amended ethics reports would list the 2001 sale and the company, called Patrick Lane LLC. He said the amended reports would also divulge two other smaller land deals he had failed to report to Congress.

"I directed my staff to file amended financial disclosure forms noting that in 2001, I transferred title to the land to a Limited Liability Corporation," Reid said in a statement issued by his office.

He said he believed the 2001 sale did not alter his ownership of the land but that he agreed to file the amended reports because "I believe in ensuring all facts come to light."

Reid labeled the AP story as the "latest attempt" by Republicans to affect the election. AP reported last week that it learned of the land deal from a former Reid adviser who had concerns about the way the deal was reported to Congress.

On the Ritz-Carlton holiday donations, Reid gave $600 in 2002, then $1,200 in 2004 and $1,500 in 2005 from his re-election campaign to an entity listed as the REC Employee Holiday Fund. His campaign listed the expenses as campaign "salary" for two of the years and as a "contribution" one year.

Reid's office said the listing as salary was a "clerical error."

Residents and workers at the Ritz said the fund's full name is the Residents Executive Committee Holiday Fund and that it collects money each year from the condominium residents to help provide Christmas gifts, bonuses and a party for the support staff.

Federal election law permits campaigns to provide "gifts of nominal value" but prohibits candidates from using political donations for personal expenses, such as mortgage, rent or utilities for "any part of any personal residence."

The law specifically defines prohibited personal use expenses as any "obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a federal officeholder."

Land deeds show Reid and his wife, Landra, purchased a condominium for their Washington residence at the hotel for $750,000 in March 2001. The holiday fund has existed for years the at the condo, workers said.

Reid said Monday he believed the expenses were permissible but he nonetheless was reimbursing the campaign.

"These donations were made to thank the men and women who work in the building for the extra work they do as a result of my political activities, and for helping the security officers assigned to me because of my Senate position," Reid said.

Larry Noble, the Federal Election Commission's former chief enforcement lawyer, said Reid's explanation is aimed at a "gray area" in the law by suggesting the donations were tied to his official Senate and political work.

"What makes this harder for the senator is that this is his personal residence and this looks like an event that everybody else at the residence is taking out of their personal money as they're living there," Noble said.

On the land dealings, Reid announced Monday he had failed to disclose two other transactions on his prior ethics reports and would account for those on his amended reports along with the 2001 sale.

The first, he said, involved the sale in 2004 of about one-third acre of land in 2004 he owned in his hometown of Searchlight, Nev. And, he said he had not reported his ownership since 1985 of a quarter acre of land his brother gave him in 1985.

Reid said the failure to disclose those transactions previously was due to "clerical errors" and they amounted to "two minor matters that were inadvertently left off my original disclosure forms."

He had asked the Senate Ethics Committee last Wednesday for an opinion on the 2001 land sale but decided to amend his forms prior to the committee acting.

Reid's announcement came after numerous newspapers nationwide published editorials criticizing both his initial failure to disclose the full details of his Las Vegas land deal and his response to AP's story.

The $1.1 million land deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations. Brown has never been charged with wrongdoing, except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court.

Ethics experts told AP that Reid's inaccurate accounting of the deal to Congress appeared to violate Senate ethics rules and raised other issues concerning taxes and potential gifts.

Q: When do you know that a lie is being perpetrated by the MSM during election season?A: Every time you turn on the TV or read a newspaper.

It has come to my attention, now more than ever, that the dinosaur media will pull out all the stops to push their political proclivities to a successful fruition.

Even in my home state of Minnesota, the Minneapolis Star Tribune continues to do their level best to put out numbers that would lead any thinking person to scratch their head in wild-eyed amazement. Take, for instance, the Minnesota gubernatorial race. The wildly successful current GOP governor, Tim Pawlenty, took Minnesota from a 4+billion dollar deficit four years ago to a current budget surplus, without raising state income or sales taxes. Yet a recent poll in the Star Tribune shows Attorney General Mike Hatch leading Pawlenty 46 to 37 percent. In order to believe this poll of 818 voters, one would have to suspend belief and subscribe to the notion that Pawlenty has such poor polling numbers, despite the fact that he has a 56 percent job approval rating!

And even today, the bearded, birkenstock-wearing grey lady falsely claimed that the RNC has conceded the Ohio Senate Race. RNC official Patrick Ruffini flat out denies this, noting that

"...the RNC has spent more money on Ohio than any other state. That level of spending will continue.The notion that the RNC is pulling out of Ohio is just dead wrong."

Indeed. Bottom line, fellow GOPers, is that the dinosaur media sharks, perhaps now more than ever since smelling blood, are ready to pull out all the stops to try to ensure a low conservative voter turnout on November 7th, whether it be by oversampling in polls, or just flat-out lying.

Don't fall for it. Don't even be tempted.In this, as in any election, turnout is everything.

If you don't turn out, not only does the RNC lose, we all lose.And on top of that, you'll have the dubious distinction of having been duped by the same folks that history has proven time and time again to be flat out liars.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

JOHNSTOWN -- The mudslinging between 12th district congressional candidates Diana Irey and John Murtha is getting messier. Irey now claims Murtha is afraid to debate her. (I guess the truth hurts--ed)

In a news conference, Diana Irey attacked Congressman Murtha on everything from his ethics to his voting record. This after a recent Susquehanna Poll showed Murtha leading Irey 57 percent to 30 percent.

Irey said, "He voted against the re-authorization of the Patriot Act. He voted to tax social security. He voted against the traditional marriage amendment. He voted to fund stem cell research, I would have voted otherwise."

Irey claims that Murtha has refused to debate her on the issues because she says, he is scared. "Perhaps Mr. Murtha is scared to debate me, because he knows I will hold him accountable for the voters for his long history of questionable behavior trading hundreds of millions of dollars in ear marked, federal appropriations, for millions of dollars in campaign contributions," said Irey.

Irey also brought up Murtha's outspokenness in the Marine Haditha scandal, and more. John Murtha's office was not available for comment Friday morning on Irey's debate claims.

TRENTON | The Pennsylvania congressman who lit a fire under Democrats last year with his call to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq was in the Garden State Friday trying to tilt the scales in a local race.

"We have some major problems in this county, said U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. "We can't solve them if we're going to spend $8 billion per month on the war, $11 million per hour. We can't solve Medicare, we can't solve the education problems, we can't spend the money to secure our ports."

That's right, PA-12. Jack Murtha was trottin' around the U.S. on his "cut n' run" tour.

You see, Jack Murtha doesn't mind if he snubs his own constituents, as long as it gets him political power.

Jack Murtha doesn't mind if we leave Iraq prematurely, and allow it to become a free base of operations for terrorism, as long as it gets him political power.

Jack Murtha doesn't mind if he unapologetically plays judge, jury and executioner to Marines in Haditha without so much as reading a report, as long as it gets him political power.

Friday, October 13, 2006

CORONADO, Calif. (AP) -- A Navy SEAL sacrificed his life to save his comrades by throwing himself on top of a grenade Iraqi insurgents tossed into their sniper hideout, fellow members of the elite force said.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor had been near the only door to the rooftop structure Sept. 29 when the grenade hit him in the chest and bounced to the floor, said four SEALs who spoke to The Associated Press this week on condition of anonymity because their work requires their identities to remain secret.

"He never took his eye off the grenade, his only movement was down toward it," said a 28-year-old lieutenant who sustained shrapnel wounds to both legs that day. "He undoubtedly saved mine and the other SEALs' lives, and we owe him."

Monsoor, a 25-year-old gunner, was killed in the explosion in Ramadi, west of Baghdad. He was only the second SEAL to die in Iraq since the war began.

Two SEALs next to Monsoor were injured; another who was 10 to 15 feet from the blast was unhurt. The four had been working with Iraqi soldiers providing sniper security while U.S. and Iraqi forces conducted missions in the area.

In an interview at the SEALs' West Coast headquarters in Coronado, four members of the special force remembered "Mikey" as a loyal friend and a quiet, dedicated professional.

"He was just a fun-loving guy," said a 26-year-old petty officer 2nd class who went through the grueling 29-week SEAL training with Monsoor. "Always got something funny to say, always got a little mischievous look on his face."

Other SEALS described the Garden Grove, Calif., native as a modest and humble man who drew strength from his family and his faith. His father and brother are former Marines, said a 31-year-old petty officer 2nd class.

This had not been the first time Monsoor had shown his character:

Prior to his death, Monsoor had already demonstrated courage under fire. He has been posthumously awarded the Silver Star for his actions May 9 in Ramadi, when he and another SEAL pulled a team member shot in the leg to safety while bullets pinged off the ground around them.

You know, I wonder if "Mad Jack" Murtha will mention Monsoor's bravery in one of his diatribes.

Minnesota 6th District U.S. Congressman Mark Kennedy will handily wipe the floor with his democrat opponent for U.S. Senate Amy Klobuchar at 8:00am (CDT) this Sunday, October 15, on NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert. This will be only one of six senatorial debates on Meet the Press, confirming that the Minnesota Senate race continues to be one of the hottest in the nation.

I'll be on Wide Awakes radio tonight at around 10:10pm CDT (that's 11:10pm for those of you on the East Coast, 8:10pm for those on the Left Coast) on "Seeing Red" with Kit Jarell. I'll be discussing my reasons for starting Murtha Must Go!!, as well as other Murtha-related issues. Click on the link to listen live. There'll also be a podcast available in a few days, and I'll post a link to it.

I’m not generally one to get into an alley fight, but it’s time to acknowledge that Patty Wetterling has become Patty Wetterlying.

With the new Majority Watch poll and recent SurveyUSA poll showing improved support for Wetterlying, with Nightline telling the nation that the Foley scandal may have saved her campaign, it’s time to point out with renewed energy that Wetterlying built up this support largely by running ads that are not true.

In fact, her entire campaign was birthed by breaking her word. As this press release in May from the MN GOP said, Wetterlying said a number of times that she was not going to run for the 6th District seat. And yet, when it was clear she was not going to get the Senate nomination, she broke her word and ran in the 6th District anyway.

Wetterlying’s second campaign ad tried to portray Bachmann as a tax hiker. It was false on several counts.

It said Bachmann wanted to raise your taxes by 23%, which was not true. Bachmann has expressed interest in the idea of a national sales tax, as she does in anything that could cut taxes, but she was some reservations about it and thinks it should be debated.

The ad, in its original form (it has since been changed) failed to mentioned this figure of 23% came out of a plan for a national sales tax.

The ad didn’t say that this national sales tax would eliminate other taxes such as the federal income tax and payroll taxes, and that therefore your net tax burden would not increase, and indeed for many it would go down.

Wetterlying’s third campaign ad capitalized on the Foley scandal. The ad infamously says “Congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman who used the Internet to molest children.”

As has been amply discussed here, no Congressional leaders have admitted to any cover-up. Wetterlying herself even admitted live on CNN that no Congressional leader has said any such thing.

Foley has not been charged with “molesting” anyone. This charge is simply untrue. Wetterlying tries to make it true by expanding the definition of molestation.

A couple of recent mailings from the DFL on Wetterlying’s behalf repeat the false charges of her tax ad.

The flyers say Bachmann wants to raise taxes 23%, but don’t mention that other taxes would be cut, so that consumption would be taxed, not income.

The flyers say Republicans have called Bachmann “crazy”, but provide no source for such a charge.

Patty Wetterling herself has allowed her campaign to be characterized by untruths.

That is why she will not be known only for her admirable work on child safety issues.

She will be known as Patty Wetter-lying.

My biggest beef personally, aside from those put forth by Jeff Kouba, is the fact that although she claims to be a child advocate, Patty advocates the killing of children in their most vulnerable state--while in what should be the safety of a mother's womb.

If a child isn't safe in its own mother's womb, then where in the world can it be safe?